I was excited to see recently that ARM announced their new Cortex-M7 microcontroller core, and that ST announced their line using that core, the STM32F7. I had briefly played around with the STM32 before, and I talked about how I was going to start using it -- I never followed up on that post, but I got some example programs working, built a custom board, didn't get that to work immediately, and then got side-tracked by other projects. With the release of the Cortex M7 and the STM32F7, I thought it'd be a good time to get back into it and work through some of the issues I had been running into.
First of all though, why do I find these chips exciting? Because they present a tremendous value opportunity, with a range of competitive chips from extremely low-priced options to extremely powerful options.
The comparison point here is the ATmega328: the microcontroller used on the Arduino, and what I've been using in most of my projects. They currently cost $3.28 [all prices are for single quantities on digikey], for which you get a nice 20MHz 8-bit microcontroller with 32KB of flash and 2KB of ram. You can go cheaper by getting the ATmega48 which costs $2.54, but you only get 4KB of program space and 512B of ram, which can start to be limiting. There aren't any higher-performance options in this line, though I believe that Atmel makes some other lines (AVR32) that could potentially satisfy that, and they also make their own line of ARM-based chips. I won't try to evaluate those other lines, though, since I'm not familiar with them and they don't have the stature of the ATmegas.
Side note -- so far I'm talking about CPU core, clock speeds, flash and ram, since for my purposes those are the major differentiators. There are other factors that can be important for other projects -- peripheral support, the number of GPIOs, power usage -- but for all of those factors, all of these chips are far far more than adequate for me so I don't typically think about them.
The STM32 line has quite a few entries in it, which challenge the ATmega328 on multiple sides. On the low side, there's the F0 series: for $1.58, you can get a 48MHz 32-bit microcontroller (Cortex M0) with 32KB of flash and 4KB of RAM. This seems like a pretty direct competitor to the ATmega328: get your ATmega power (and more) at less than half the price. It even comes in the same package, for what that's worth.
At slightly more than the cost of an ATmega, you can move up to the F3 family, and get quite a bit better performance. For $4.14 you can get a 72MHz Cortex M3 with 64KB of flash and 16KB of RAM.
One of the most exciting things to me is just how much higher we can keep going: you can get a 100MHz chip for $7.08, a 120MHz chip for $8.26, a 168MHz chip for $10.99, and -- if you really want it -- a 180MHz chip for $17.33. The STM32F7 has recently been announced and there's no pricing, but is supposed to be 200MHz (with a faster core than the M4) and is yet another step up.
When I saw this, I was pretty swayed: assuming that the chips are at least somewhat compatible (but who knows -- read on), if you learn about this line, you can get access to a huge number of chips that you can start using in many different situations.
But if these chips are so great, why doesn't everyone already use them? As I dig into trying to use it myself, I think I'm starting to learn why. I think some of it has to do with the technical features of these chips, but it's mostly due to the ecosystem around them, or lack thereof.
Working with the STM32 and the STM32F3 Discovery board I have (their eval board), I'm gaining a lot of appreciation for what Arduino has done. In the past I've haven't been too impressed -- it seems like every hobbyist puts together their own clone, so it can't be too hard, right?
So yes, maybe putting together the hardware for such a board isn't too bad. But I already have working hardware for my STM32, and I *still* had to do quite a bit of work to get anything running on it. This has shown me that there is much more to making these platforms successful than just getting the hardware to work.
The Arduino takes some fairly simple technology (ATmega) and turns it into a very good product: something very versatile and easy to use. There doesn't seem to be anything corresponding for the STM32: the technology is all there, and probably better than the ATmega technology, but the products are intensely lacking.
Ok so I've been pretty vague about saying it's harder to use, so what actually causes that?
Family compatibility issues
One of the most interesting aspects of the STM32 family is its extensiveness; it's very compelling to think that you can switch up and down this line, either within a project or for different projects, with relatively little migration cost. It's exciting to think that with one ramp-up cost, you gain access to both $1.58 microcontrollers and 168MHz microcontrollers.
I've found this to actually be fairly lackluster in practice -- quite a bit changes as you move between the different major lines (ex: F3 vs F4). Within a single line, things seem to be pretty compatible -- it looks like everything in the "F30X" family is code-compatible. It also looks like they've tried hard to maintain pin-compatibility for different footprints between different lines, so it looks like (at a hardware level) you can take an existing piece of hardware and simply put a different microcontroller onto it. I've learned the hard way that pin compatibility in no way has to imply software compatibility -- I thought pin compatibility would have been a stricter criteria than software compatibility, but they're just not related.
To be fair, even the ATmegas aren't perfect when it comes to compatibility. I've gotten bitten by the fact that even though the ATmega88 and ATmega328 are supposed to be simple variations on the same part (they have only a single datasheet), there some differences there. There's also probably much more of a difference between the ATmegaX8 and the other ATmegas, and even more of a difference with their other lines (XMEGA, AVR32).
For the ATmegas, people seem to have somewhat standardized on the ATmegaX8, which keeps things simple. For the STM32, people seem to be pretty split between the different lines, which leads to a large amount of incompatible projects out there. Even if you're just trying to focus on a single chip, the family incompatibilities can hurt you even if you're not trying to port code -- it means that the STM32 "community" ends up being fragmented more than it potentially could be, with lots of incompatible example code out there. It means the community for any particular chip is essentially smaller due to the fragmentation.
What exactly is different between lines? Pretty much all the registers can be different, the interactions with the core architecture can be different (peripherals are put on different buses, etc). This means that either 1) you have different code for different families, or 2) you use a compatibility library that masks the differences. #1 seems to be the common case at least for small projects, and mostly works but it makes porting hard, and it can be hard to find example code for your particular processor. Option #2 (using a library) presents its own set of issues.
Lack of good firmware libraries
This issue of software differences seems like the kind of problem that a layer of abstraction could solve. Arduino has done a great job of doing this with their set of standardized libraries -- I think the interfaces even get copied to unrelated projects that want to provide "Arduino-compatibility".
For the STM32, there is an interesting situation: there are too many library options. None of them are great, presumably because none of them have gained enough traction to have a sustainable community. ST themselves provide some libraries, but there are a number of issues (licensing, general usability) and people don't seem to use it. I have tried libopencm3, and it seems quite good, but it has been defunct for a year or so. There are a number of other libraries such as libmaple, but none of them seem to be taking off.
Interestingly, this doesn't seem to be a problem for more complex chips, such as the Allwinner Cortex-A's I have been playing with -- despite the fact that they are far more complicated, people have standardized on a single "firmware library" called Linux, so we don't have this same fragmentation.
So what did I do about this problem of there being too many options leading to none of them being good? Decide to create my own, of course. I don't expect mine homebrew version to take off or be competitive with existing libraries (even the defunct ones), but it should be educational and hopefully rewarding. If you have any tips about other libraries I would love to hear them.
Down the rabbit hole...
Complexity of minimal usage
I managed to get some simple examples working on my own framework, but it was surprisingly complicated (and hence that's all I've managed to do so far). I won't go into all the details -- you can check out the code in my github -- but there are quite a few things to get right, most of which are not well advertised. I ended up using some of the startup code from the STM32 example projects, but I ended up running into a bug in the linker script (yes you read that right) which was causing things to crash due to an improper setting of the initial stack pointer. I had to set up and learn to use GDB to remotely debug the STM32 -- immensely useful, but much harder than what you need to do for an Arduino. The bug in the linker script was because it had hardcoded the stack pointer as 64KB into the sram, but the chip I'm using only has 40KB of sram; this was an easy fix, so I don't know why they hardcoded that, especially since it was in the "generic" part of the linker script. I was really hoping to avoid having to mess with linker scripts to get an LED to blink.
Once I fixed that bug, I got the LEDs to blink and was happy. I was messing with the code and having it blink in different patterns, and noticed that sometimes it "didn't work" -- the LEDS wouldn't flash at all. The changes that caused it seemed entirely unrelated -- I would change the number of initial flashes, and suddenly get no flashes at all.
It seems like the issue is that I needed to add a delay between the enabling of the GPIO port (and the enabling of the corresponding clock) and the setting of the mode registers that control that port. Otherwise, the mode register would get re-reset, causing all the pins get set back to inputs instead of outputs. I guess this is the kind of issues that one runs into when working at this level on a chip of this complexity.
So overall, the STM32 chips are way, way more complicated to use than the ATmegas. I was able to build custom ATmega circuits and boards very easily and switch away from the Arduino libraries and IDE without too much hassle, but I'm still struggling to do that with the STM32 despite having spent more time and now having more experience on the subject. I really hope that someone will come along and clean up this situation, since I think the chips look great. ST seems like they are trying to offer more libraries and software, but I just don't get an optimistic sense from looking at it.
So, I'm back where I was a few months ago: I got some LEDs to blink on an evaluation board. Except now it's running on my own framework (or lack thereof), and I have a far better understanding of how it all works.
The next steps are to move this setup to my custom board, which uses a slightly different microcontroller (F4 instead of F3) and get those LEDs to blink. Then I want to learn how to use the USB driver, and use that to implement a USB-based virtual serial port. The whole goal of this exercise is to get the 168MHz chip working and use that as a replacement for my arduino-like microcontroller that runs my other projects, which ends up getting both CPU and bandwidth limited.
We've been working very hard over the past few months, and I'm very proud to "release" version 0.2. I set up a shiny new dedicated Pyston blog, and you can see the announcement here: http://blog.pyston.org/2014/09/11/9/
I'm putting "release" in quotes since we're not distributing binaries due to the "early access" nature, and in fact the v0.2 tag in the repository is already out of date and there are a number of features that have landed on trunk. But still, I think it's a milestone deserving of a version number bump.
Sometimes I start a project thinking it will be about one thing: I thought my FPGA project was going to be about developing my Verilog skills and building a graphics engine, but at least at first, it was primarily about getting JTAG working. (Programming Xilinx FPGAs is actually a remarkably complicated story, typically involving people reverse engineering the Xilinx file formats and JTAG protocol.) I thought my 3D printer would be about designing 3D models and then making them in real life -- but it was really about mechanical reliability. My latest project, which I haven't blogged about since I was trying to hold off until it was done, is building a single board computer (pcb photo here) -- I thought it'd be about the integrity of high-speed signals (DDR3, 100Mbps ethernet), but it's actually turned out to be about BGA soldering.
I've done some BGA soldering in the past -- I created a little test board for Xilinx CPLDs, since those are 1) the cheapest BGA parts I could find, and 2) have a nice JTAG interface which gives us an easy way of testing the external connectivity. After a couple rough starts with that I thought I had the hang of it down, so I used a BGA FPGA in my (ongoing) raytracer project. I haven't extensively tested the soldering on that board, but the basic functionality (JTAG and VGA) were brought up successfully, so for at least ~30 of the pins I had a 100% success rate. So I thought I had successfully conquered BGA soldering, and I was starting to think about whether or not I could do 0.8mm BGAs, and so on.
My own SBC
Fast forward to trying to build my own single board computer (SBC). This is something I've been thinking about doing for a while -- not because I think the world needs another Raspberry-Pi clone, but because I want to make one as small as possible and socket it into a backplane for a small cluster computer. Here's what I came up with:
Sorry for the lack of reference scale, but these boards are 56x70mm, and I should be able to fit 16 of them into a mini-ITX case. The large QFP footprint is for an Allwinner A13 processor -- not the most performant option out there, but widely used so I figured it'd be a good starting point. The assembly went fairly smoothly: I had to do a tiny bit of trace cutting and added a discrete 10k resistor, and I forgot to solder the exposed pad of the A13 (which is not just for thermal management, but is also the only ground pin for the processor), but after that, it booted up and I got a console!
The console was able to tell me that there was some problem initializing the DDR3 DRAM, at which point the processor would freeze. I spent some time hacking around in the U-Boot firmware to figure out what was going wrong, and the problems started with the processor failing in "training", or learning of optimal timings. I spent some time investigating that, and wasn't able to get it to work.
So I bought an Olimex A13 board, and decided to try out my brand of memory on it, since it's not specified to be supported. I used my hot air tool to remove the DDR3 chip from the Olimex board and attach one of mine, and... got the same problem. I was actually pretty happy with that, since it meant that there was a problem with the soldering or the DRAM part, which is much more tractable than a problem with trace length matching or single integrity.
I tried quite a few times to solder the DRAM onto the Olimex board, using a number of different approaches (no flux, flux, or solder paste). In the end, on the fifth attempt, I got the Olimex board to boot! So the memory was supported, but my "process yield" was abysmal. I didn't care, and I decided to try it again on my board, with no luck. So I went back to the Olimex board: another attempt, didn't work. Then I noticed that my hot air tool was now outputting only 220C air, which isn't really hot enough to do BGA reflow. (I left a 1-star review on Amazon -- my hopes weren't high for that unit, but 10-reflows-before-breaking was not good enough.)
I ordered myself a nicer hot air unit (along with some extra heating elements for the current one in case I can repair it, but it's not clear that the heating element is the issue), which should arrive in the next few days. I'm still holding out hope that I can get my process to be very reliable, and that there aren't other problems with the board. Hopefully my next blog post will be about how much nicer my new hot air tool is, and how it let me nail the process down.
I've seen a lot of references to the wearables market lately with a lot of people getting very excited about it. I can't tell though, is it actually a thing that people will really want? Lots of companies are jumping into it and trying to provide offerings, and the media seems to be taking it seriously, but even though I work at a tech company in San Francisco, I haven't seen a single person wearing one or talking about it.
I can see why companies are jumping into it: a lot of them got burned by not taking tablets seriously, and look where that market ended up now. A potential new market, which could provide a new revenue stream, has to be the dream for any exec, and it could make a lot of sense to get a jump start on a new market even if there are doubts about it.
That said, I'm feeling like wearables might be a similar market to 3d printers: it makes a lot of sense that in the future those things will be very big, but I think there's a very long road ahead. I'm not sure there's going to be a single killer feature for either of them, so adoption could be slow -- though I think once they take off they'll get integrated into our day-to-day.
But who knows, I was a tablet naysayer when they came out, and maybe Apple will release an iWatch which will define and launch the wearables market as well. But especially when it comes to the "smart watch" wearable, I think it will be more similar to netbooks, and even though a number of companies will push hard, people will gravitate to other form factors.
http://www.wired.com/2014/08/isp-bitcoin-theft/ Looks like this is an implementation of what I described previously. This guy used BGP to route internet traffic to him -- the article is light on the technical details but my guess is that he masqueraded as a popular bitcoin pool and gave out orders that benefited him rather than the real pool.
The problem is that while the base Bitcoin protocol is secure (as far as I know), there are huge ecosystems built on top of it, most of which haven't had the same scrutiny. The worst I've seen is the "stratum mining protocol": it distributes the mining work well, but I don't think anyone has paid any attention to its security. There isn't any authentication of either endpoint: you don't really need to authenticate the client except for potentially rate limiting issues, but there's *no authentication of the server*. This means that if anyone is able to hijack your connection to the mining pool, they can ask you to start mining for them, and you can't detect it until the pool pays you less money than you expected.
I was anticipating this happening with a DNS spoofing attack, but this particular article is about BGP. Doing a MITM of an unencrypted and unauthenticated stream is a very basic level of attack capabilities, and there are a number of different vectors to do it. The Wired article blames BGP, which I think is the wrong conclusion. It's up to the pool operators and mining-client-writers to come up with some sort of authentication scheme, and then get everyone to switch to it. Until then, it seems well within the NSA's means to hijack all of the largest pools and take over the bitcoin blockchain if they wanted to.
I've seen the Mill CPU come up a number of times -- maybe because I subscribed to their updates and so I get emails about their talks. They're getting a bunch of buzz, but every time I look at their docs or watch their videos, I can't tell -- are they "for real"? They certainly claim a large number of benefits (retire 30 instructions a cycle! expose massive ILP!), but it's hard to tell if it's just some guy claiming things or if there's any chance this could happen.
They make a big deal out of their founder's history: "Ivan Godard has designed, implemented or led the teams for 11 compilers for a variety of languages and targets, an operating system, an object-oriented database, and four instruction set architectures." At first I thought this was impressive, but I decided to look into it and I can't find any details about what he's done, which isn't a good sign. If we're counting toy projects here, I've defined 5 languages, an ISA, and an OS -- which is why we don't usually count toy projects.
They revealed in one of their talks too that they don't have anything more than a proof-of-concept compiler for their system... but they have "50-odd" patents pending? They said it's "fairly straightforward to see" the results you'd get "if you're familiar with compilers", and when more hard questions were asked Ivan started talking about his credentials. I feel less convinced...
This sounds like a lot of stuff that's been attempted before (ex Itanium) -- unsuccessfully. They have some interesting ideas, but no compiler, and (if I remember correctly) no prototype processor. It bugs me too when people over-promise: Ivan talks about what they "do" rather than "plan to do" or "want to do", or "have talked about doing", which feels disingenuous if it's just a paper design right now.
The more I look into the Mill the more I don't think it's real; I think it'll fizzle out soon, as more people push for actual results rather than claims. It's a shame, since I think it's always cool to see new processors with new designs, but I don't think this will end up being one of them.
There's a cool-looking competition being held right now, called The Hackaday Prize. I originally tried to do this super-ambitious custom-SBC project -- there's no writeup yet but you can see some photos of the pcbs here -- but it's looking like that's difficult enough that it's not going to happen in time. So instead I've decided to finally get around to building something I've wanted to for a while: an FPGA raytracer.
I've been excited for a while about the possibility of using an FPGA as a low-level graphics card, suitable for interfacing with embedded projects: I often have projects where I want more output than an LCD display, but I don't like the idea of having to sluff the data back to the PC to display (defeats the purpose of it being embedded). I thought for a while about doing either a 2D renderer or even a 3D renderer (of the typical rasterizing variety), but those would both be a fair amount of work for something that people already have. Why not spend that time and do something a little bit different? And so the idea was born to make it a raytracer instead.
I'm not sure how well this is going to work out; even a modest resolution of 640x480@10fps is 3M pixels per second. This isn't too high in itself, but with a straightforward implementation of raytracing, even rendering 1000 triangles with no lighting at this resolution would require doing three *billion* ray-triangle intersections per second. Even if we cut the pixel rate by a factor of 8 (320x240@5fps), that's still 380M ray-triangle intersections. We would need 8 intersection cores running at 50MHz, or maybe 16 intersection cores at 25MHz. That seems like a fairly aggressive goal: it's probably doable, but it's only 320x240@5fps, which isn't too impressive. But who knows, maybe I'll be way off and it'll be possible to fit 64 intersection cores in there at 50MHz! The problem is also very parallelizable, so in theory the rendering performance could be improved pretty simply by moving to a larger FPGA. I'm thinking of trying out the new Artix-series of FPGAs: they have a better price-per-logic-element than the Spartans and are supposed to be faster. Plus there are some software licensing issues with trying to use larger Spartans that don't exist for the Artix's. I'm currently using an Spartan 6 LX16, and maybe eventually I'll try using an Artix 7 100T, which has 6 times the potential rendering capacity.
These calculations assume that we need to do intersections with all the triangles, which I doubt anyone serious about raytracing does: I could try to implement octtrees in the FPGA to reduce the number of collision tests required. But then you get a lot more code complexity, as well the problem of harder data parallelism (different rays will need to be intersected with different triangles). There's the potential for a massive decrease in the number of ray-triangle intersections required (a few orders of magnitude), so it's probably worth it if I can get it to work.
Part of the Hackaday Prize is that they're promoting their new website, hackaday.io. I'm not quite sure how to describe it -- maybe as a "project-display website", where project-doers can talk and post about their projects, and get comments and "skulls" (similar to Likes) from people looking at it. It seems like an interesting idea, but I'm not quite sure what to make of it, and how to split posts between this blog and the hackaday.io project page. I'm thinking that it could be an interesting place to post project-level updates there (ex: "got the dram working", "achieved this framerate", etc) which don't feel quite right for this, my personal blog.
Anyway, you can see the first "project log" here, which just talks about some of the technical details of the project and has a picture of the test pattern it produces to validate the VGA output. Hopefully soon I'll have more exciting posts about the actual raytracer implementation. And I'm still holding out for the SBC project I was working on so hopefully you'll see more about that too :P
For fun, I put some 0201 capacitors behind a BGA part in this board. I decided to try it, and surprisingly it was possible. Not something I want to do again though.
Long story short, I decided to try out an interesting new PCB-manufacturer, dirtypcbs.com. I decided to compare it against my current go-to, OSH Park, so I ran a new 4-layer board of mine through both. The 4-layer service at dirtypcbs was only just launched, and I had to ask Ian to let me in on it, and I think it's important to take that into account. Here are some quick thoughts:
The easiest thing to compare.
- OSH Park: $60: $10/in^2 at 6 in^2 (56x70mm), with free shipping.
- Dirty pcbs: $100: $50 for boards, $25 for rush processing, $25 for fast shipping. (Note: the prices have changed since then.)
For this size board, OSH Park wins. I also made a 100x100mm board through dirty pcbs in this same order, which came out to $75 ($50 + $25 for rush processing, got to share shipping charges), vs $155 it would have been on OSH Park.
So not hugely surprising, but due to OSH Park's linear pricing model, they are more price-effective at smaller board sizes.
I ordered both boards on 7/3 before going off for a long weekend.
The OSH Park panel was dated for 7/4, but didn't go out until 7/7; probably good since it seems like the cutoff for getting in on a panel is the day before the panel date. The panel was returned to OSH Park on 7/16, they shipped by boards that day, and I received them on 7/18. 15 calendar days, which is slightly better than the average I've gotten for their 4 layers (seems to depend heavily on the panelization delay).
dirtypcbs: there were some issues that required some communication with the board factory, and unfortunately each communication round trip takes a day due to time zone issues. The boards seem to have gotten fabbed by 7/8 -- not quite the "2-3 day" time I had been hoping for, but still way faster than OSH Park.
I didn't end up receiving the dirtypcb boards until 7/22, and I'm not quite sure what happened in between. Ian was, to his credit, quite forthright about them still figuring out the best processes for working with the new 4-layer fab, which I think delayed the shipment by about a week. I'm not quite sure where the rest of the delay comes from -- perhaps customs? DHL reports that the package was shipped on 7/21 -- which is amazing if true, since I received them the next day.
So overall the total time was 19 calendar days, which was a little disappointing given that I had paid extra for the faster processing, but understandable given the situation. The winner for this round has to be OSH Park, but dirtypcbs clearly has the ability to get the boards to you much faster if they can work out the kinks in their processes.
Here's a picture of the two boards -- as you can see they both look quite excellent:
There's a silkscreen ID code on the dirtypcbs board, but they were very considerate and put it under a QFP part where it won't be visible after assembly.
One thing that's nice about going with a non-panelized service is that they can chamfer the board edges for you. These boards use a PCI-Express card edge connector, for which you're supposed to chamfer the edges (make them slightly angled) in order to make insertion easier. The dirtypcbs fab ended up doing that for me without it being asked for, though it's quite subtle:
Overall, it's definitely nice to go with a non-panelizing service, since you get clean board edges and potentially-chamfered edges if you need it. Typically the panel tabs that get left on the OSH Park boards aren't anything more than a visual distraction, but they can actually be quite annoying if you try to apply a solder paste stencil, since it becomes very tricky to hold the board steady. Also, it makes it very difficult to stencil multiple boards in a row, since they will all break slightly differently.
Another benefit is that dirtypcb gives you the option of different soldermask colors, with anything other than green costing $18 (for their 4-layer options -- for their 2-layer the colors are free). OSH Park doesn't charge you for color, but your only option is purple.
Dirtypcb only offers HASL finishing for their 4-layer boards whereas OSH Park offers the apparently higher-quality ENIG finish. I'm not quite sure how that affects things (other than ENIG being lead-free), so I'm not sure how to rate that.
So overall I'd say that dirtypcbs wins this category, due to being non-panelizing: you get clean edges, and you can choose your PCB color.
This one's slightly hard for me to judge, since I'm not quite sure what I'm looking for. OSH Park has better tolerances than dirtypcbs, though since I wanted to have the same board made at both, I used the safer dirtypcbs tolerances.
One thing that I was worried about was this 0.4mm-pitch QFP chip that takes up most of the top side. Unfortunately, the dirtypcbs fab isn't able to lay soldermask this finely, so the entire pad array is uncovered:
They also don't have any soldermask dams on the 0.5mm-pitch QFN at the top of the photo.
I did, however, specify soldermask there, and OSH Park was able to do it. The registration between the soldermask and the copper layers are slightly off, by about 2mil, which is a little disappointing but probably nothing to worry about:
Here's the other tricky section of the board: an 0.8mm-pitch bga:
Both fabs handled it without problems.
I haven't electrically tested any of the boards, but these images seem to show that they're both electrically sound.
So I'd say that OSH Park edges out dirtypcbs in this category -- the dirtypcb PCBs are definitely high-quality but OSH Park is a slightly better still.
I decided to also order a stencil through dirtypcbs, since they offer steel stencils for $30, which is way way cheaper than I've seen them elsewhere. This is what I got:
That's a huge box! What was inside?
Ian was also surprised that they sent something this large :) I think I have to try using it once but it doesn't seem very easy to use... It looks very high quality, though, and they also touched up my stencil design for me. I'm pretty sure all the changes they made were good, but they did things like break up large exposed pads into multiple paste sections. They also covered up some of the large vias I put in there for hand-soldering the exposed pads -- usually I mark those as "no cream" in Eagle (don't get an opening in the stencil) but I forgot for these.
OSH Park doesn't offer stencils, but a similar service OSH Stencils does (no official relation, I believe). I've used them a few times before and had great experiences with them: they offer cheap kapton stencils, and get them to you fast. Here's what they look like:
I haven't tried using either set of stencils yet, because unfortunately the circuit is broken :( I have a lot of these circuit boards now though so maybe even if I don't assemble any more of the boards I'll try out the stencils in the name of science.
Regardless, I think I'm going to stick with OSH Stencils for now :)
So that's about it for what I looked at or noticed. I think I'm going to stick with OSH Park for small boards for now, but the option of getting 10 4-layer 10x10cm boards from dirtypcbs for $50 is pretty crazy, and opens up the possibility of using boards that size. If dirtypcbs can work out the kinks of their process with the fab, then they also have the potential to deliver circuit boards to you much much faster than OSH Park, and much much more cheaply than places that specialize in fast turnarounds. So overall I'm glad I ordered from them and I'm sure I will again at some point.
In some of my recent boards, which I will hopefully blog about soon, I decided to add some DRC-violating sections to test how well they would come out. OSH Park has pretty good tolerances -- 5/5 trace/space with 10 mil holes and 4 mil annular rings, for their 4-layer boards -- but they're not *quite* good enough to support 0.8mm-pitch BGAs. You can fit one of their vias in between the BGA pads, but you can't end up routing a trace between two 0.8mm-pitch vias. It's very close to working -- one only needs 4.5/4.5-mil trace/space in order to get it to work. I asked one of the support people at oshpark.com what they suggested, and they said that they've seen people have luck violating the trace/space rules, and said to not try violating the via rules (it's not like they'll somehow magically make a smaller hole -- makes sense). I had a tiny bit of extra room in some recent boards so I decided to put this to the test, before incorporating this into my designs. I took some pictures using a cheap USB microscope that I bought.
My first test was to use a comb-shaped polygon fill. The comb consists of 4 triangles, which go from a point (0-mil "width") to an 8-mil width. The goal was to test how small the feature size could be. I put some silkscreen on it to mark where the triangles had 0/2/4/6/8-mil width. Here's what I got (click to enlarge):
You can see that they were able to produce what are supposed to be 2-mil traces and 2-mil spaces, but beyond that the traces disappear or the triangles become solid. I don't really have a way of measuring if they actually made them to these dimensions, but they seem like they're approximately the size they should be.
Just because the minimum feature size is potentially 2mil doesn't mean that you can use that reliably in your designs. I came up with a sub-DRC test pattern, and ran it against a number of different trace/space combinations. Here are some results for 4/4 and 6/3:
In the both pictures, the 4/4 looks surprisingly good. The 6/3 looks like it's pushing it on the spacing, but electrically these simple test patterns seem to have come out ok (the two separate nets are continuous and not connected to each other). That doesn't mean I trust that I could use 6/3 for an entire board, and I doubt I'll ever try it at all, but it's cool to see that they can do it.
One interesting thing to note is the problems with the silkscreen in the first "4" in "4/4". Interestingly, the problem is exactly the same in all three boards. You can see a similar problem with the bottom of the "6" and "3", but I feel like that's reasonable since I have exposed copper traces right there and the board house presumably clipped that on purpose. I don't understand why the "4" got the same treatment, though.
Here are some tests that worked out slightly less well:
The 3-mil traces did not survive, and ended up delaminating in all three boards. You can see though just how good the 5/5 traces look in comparison.
Luckily, on a separate set of boards I had also included this same test pattern, but in this case mostly covered with silkscreen. These actually seem to have worked out just fine:
I doubt that I'd ever feel comfortable going this small -- a small test pattern on a single run of boards doesn't prove anything. But seeing how well these turned out makes me feel much more comfortable using 4.5/4.5 trace/space for 0.8mm-pitch BGA fan-out, especially if I can keep the DRC violations on the outer layers where they can be visually inspected.
0.8mm-pitch BGAs would still be quite difficult to do on a 4-layer board, for any decent grid size. If it's small or not a full grid it's easier -- I was able to route a 0.5mm-pitch BGA on OSH Park's 2-layer process, since it was a 56-ball BGA formatted as two concentric rings. It's also not too difficult to route an 0.8mm-pitch BGA DRAM chip, since the balls again are fairly sparse.
I'm looking at some 256-ball 0.8mm-pitch BGAs for FPGAs or processors, which may or may not be possible right now. These tests show me that there's at least in the realm of possibility, but it might only be practical if there are a large number of unused IO balls.
In my conversation with OSH Park, though, they said they want to start doing 6-layer boards eventually, which are likely to come with another tolerance improvement. I told them to count me in :)
Update: wow, wordpress really made a mess of those images. Sorry about that.